31–40 of 363 posts
The "Visual Editor" should be confined to the Talk: pages, so that the difficulty of editing can be higher, to match the difficulty of dealing with Wikipedia's internal bureaucracy.
"Toxic" would not be the thing I'd start with. I'd start with "being told no for the first time", which might or not have an overlap with toxicity. But I think it's much more likely that someone will start making edits, only get uninterested comments or bot engagements, keep editing, then at some point someone reverts the edits - tells them no, and so they stop. Potentially this scenario even catches situations like:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's regular users and then there's "Extended confirmed users" who have more permissions and can do things such as edit protected pages >User is automatically added to the group when the account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. This user access right allows editors to edit and create pages that are under extended confirmed protection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_ac…
> There's regular users and then there's "Extended confirmed users" (...) The accusation isn't directed at users with specific role-oriented permissions. The accusation is directed at editors. Everyone in wikipedia is an editor. Even users who haven't logged in, or have an account at all. It's a nonsense claim, particularly when we take into account that the whole concept of a wiki is that everyone in the world is an…
There are people who rarely make edits on Wikipedia, and then there are people who do it all the time and participate in the wider culture/community/bureaucracy of Wikipedia.
I believe the original comment was talking about people who regularly edit Wikipedia articles.
> For instance, the level of conflict on discussion pages, as assessed by raters, has been shown to negatively correlate with the quality of the corresponding Wikipedia articles. An alternative explanation is that "toxic comments" protect wikipedia from low quality content, acting as defense mechanism against bad editors. So without better study which tries to analyze if the critique (regardless of toxicity) is justi…
Part of that...
> One of those things that comes up time and time again in virtual communites is that of “everyone here is mean.” There is some truth to that.
> Try as we might with “be nice” policies and censoring rude comments that have the possibility of driving newcomers away, rudeness still thrives. While one component of this is John Gabriel’s theory ( https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboa... ) and that people are more likely to act out when protected by some veneer of anonymity, it doesn’t handle that on usenet of old and many professional leaning forums where the link between online and real world identity is more tightly coupled for many users.
> Clay Shirky touched on this in A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy where he talks about a community oriented BBS (it was the 70s with all the ideals that implies) that was overrun by kids and the community there lacked the tools to be able to moderate or censor them (these tools were never built because it ran counter to those ideals).
> This brings us to Usenet in the 80s and 90s. Usenet was much larger than the BBSs of old and it had some moderation tools with it. There were moderated news groups that restricted posting to only approved posts – this didn’t scale well. There were also cancel messages as part of the control protocls that were part of cancelbot wars against spam. At the personal level, there were was really only one tool available – kill files which caused specific posts, threads, or users to be ignored by you and only you. The reprocussion of this was that in order to have someone get disinvited from a news group, one had to drive them away with social tools. Rudeness.
> Today’s sites are much larger than those BBSs of the 70s and the largest of those contest the volume of data of a full usenet feed at its height. The community moderation tools have simillarly grown in capability as the moderated usnet groups would not scale to thousands of posts per day (Reddit has on the order of 200k posts per day, Quora and Stack Overflow/Exchange have on the order of 10k posts per day).
> The problem of rudeness arises as people run out of the ability to moderate using the tools provided in software. Votes, the ability to push a post into the workflow of “make it dissapear for everyone” and the ability to completely hide a post or person from ever showing up on one’s feed again – when those tools run out or aren’t provided the “social” moderation tools are the ones that remain.
> Thus rudeness and the attempt to drive an individual away because other moderation tools have run out or are ineffective. Rudeness is the moderation tool of last resort. When one sees the umteenth “how do I draw a pyramid with *” in the first week of classes on a programming site – how does one make it go away when the moderation tools have been fully exhausted? Be rude and hope that the next person seeing it won’t post the umteenth+1 one.
It's all just a matter of expectations. Today's Wikipedia has a quite difficult learning curve for making proper and lasting contributions. The "Visual Editor" should be confined to the Talk: pages, so that the difficulty of editing can be higher, to match the difficulty of dealing with Wikipedia's internal bureaucracy.
> For instance, the level of conflict on discussion pages, as assessed by raters, has been shown to negatively correlate with the quality of the corresponding Wikipedia articles. An alternative explanation is that "toxic comments" protect wikipedia from low quality content, acting as defense mechanism against bad editors. So without better study which tries to analyze if the critique (regardless of toxicity) is justi…
It's all just a matter of expectations. Today's Wikipedia has a quite difficult learning curve for making proper and lasting contributions. The "Visual Editor" should be confined to the Talk: pages, so that the difficulty of editing can be higher, to match the difficulty of dealing with Wikipedia's internal bureaucracy.
It's a vicious circle.